Part 2: Absurd Excuses in Effort to Retain Jackson Prosecution MJEOL Bullet #214B Continuing with the prosecutions attempt to retain the Michael Jackson case, we pick up at the flippant so what quote in the Prosecutions Opposition to Motion to Recuse the District Attorney. A little background first. There were two investigations in 2003 by the Santa Barbara Sheriffs department surrounding this accusing family. The first one began in February 2003 and ended in April 2003. The second one began in June 2003 at the behest of civil lawyer Larry Feldman and his favorite shrink, Stan Katz. This is an essential fact which stunned many case observers, legal analysts and lawyers alike. Concerning that previous closed investigation, and the second investigation which began in June 2003, prosecutors say so what:
If it is that the initial investigation did not result in criminal charges, so what? It was the further investigation that followed [redacted] disclosures to a forensic psychologist that resulted in Defendants indictment. (see Prosecution’s Response to Recusal Motionpg 4)
“So what”? This isnt a playground argument. The larger issue here is that the gunning-for-Jackson attitude omits any possibility of an impartial look being given to these allegations; especially after a previous investigation into the exact same allegation turned up nothing.